David Hughes is the Daily Telegraph's chief leader writer. He has been covering British politics for 30 years.

Does the New York Times regard Mark Thompson as damaged goods?

Mark Thompson must be getting just a little bit sweaty-palmed right now. The former BBC director-general, who was at the helm when the Newsnight/Savile debacle occurred, has been subjected to a forensic and highly damaging analysis of his involvement in the affair in today’sNew York Times – the paper where he is about to take over as chief executive on a £4-million-a-year salary. It highlights in particular the way he appears to have changed his tune:

Mr. Thompson’s version of his role has shifted somewhat over the past 10 days. In a statement released on Oct. 13, Mr. Thompson issued a blanket denial of any knowledge of the squelched BBC report. ‘I was not notified or briefed about the ‘Newsnight’ investigation,’ he said, adding that ‘during my time as director general of the BBC, I never heard any allegations or received any complaints about Jimmy Savile.’ But on Tuesday, in a letter in response to Mr. [Rob] Wilson [the Tory MP who has been setting the agenda on Savile], Mr. Thompson appeared to adjust his answer slightly, saying, ‘I was never formally notified about the ‘Newsnight’ investigation and was not briefed about the allegations they were examining and to what extent, if at all, those allegations related to Savile’s work at the BBC.’

That’s bad enough – but it gets worse. Today’s Times (no relation) reports that Thompson has admitted through his spokesman that he was aware that Newsnight was investigating Savile. The spokesman said: "Mark attended a party late last year where a journalist mentioned the fact that Newsnight had been investigating Savile. The journalist said words to the effect that 'You must be worried about the Newsnight investigation'. ”

Yesterday The New York Times’s public editor Margaret Sullivan wondered in a blog posting: "How likely is it that (Thompson) knew nothing?" – before the stiletto went in: "His integrity and decision-making are bound to affect The [New York] Times and its journalism – profoundly. It's worth considering now whether he is the right person for the job, given this turn of events." It doesn’t look good.